Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
one or more devices configured to (claim 1)…
one or more cloud servers configured to (claim 17)…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification appears to disclose the following support:
Regarding the “device”, paragraph 61 discloses “The present invention includes a device (e.g., a computer, a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, etc.) including a processor and a memory operable to receive and analyze spectrographic test data from at least one spectrographic analysis device”. Further, regarding the “server”, paragraph 61 of the specification further discloses “In one embodiment, the at least one server includes at least one quantum processor operable to assist in performing analysis on the spectrographic test data.”. As such, the “device” and “server” will be interpreted as hardware or a combination of software and hardware (i.e., a processor and memory), either in a dedicated computing device, or integrated into another entity, or distributed across multiple entities or computing devices.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“develop characteristic profiles for a plurality of training samples”
“utilize the normalized spectral graphs to determine the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“calculates a normalized spectral graph for each of the measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)), mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“wherein the training data comprises a plurality of measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples of known elements, known compounds, and/or known mixtures”
“wherein the experimental data comprises the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“An artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, comprising: one or more devices, comprising a processor and a memory, configured to…”
“wherein the Al module…”
“wherein the Al module is operable to…”
“at least one reactor”
“at least one energy supply system”
“wherein the energy supply system comprises an electrical system, wherein the electrical system adjusts a voltage of the at least one reactor to sustain a stable plasma condition”
“wherein the at least one reactor generates plasma from a plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the sample”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“receive training data from one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices”
“wherein the one or more devices receive experimental data for the plasma from a testing spectrometer”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way or are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way, mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates a report with indications and concentrations of present identified molecules based on a comparison of the experimental data to the characteristic profiles”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module automatically…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“solve a linear programming model to determine the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module is operable to…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein solving the linear programming model comprises minimizing the difference between the experimental data and a combined spectral graph”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the training data includes data of measurements of known molecules and/or compositions with varying integration time, reactor chamber pressure, and/or wavelength and/or intensity of light from the one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“switch methods of determining composition and/or concentration of the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module is operable to dynamically…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module automatically develops the characteristic profiles by using linear regression, non-linear regression, and/or ensemble learning methods”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“adjust integration time, spectral resolution, and/or entrance slit width of the one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices based on noise and/or saturation in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module is operable to…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“automatically developing characteristic profiles for a plurality of training samples”
“determining the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data via the normalized spectral graphs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“calculating a normalized spectral graph for each of the measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)), mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“wherein the training data comprises a plurality of measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples of known elements, known compounds and/or known mixtures”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“via one or more devices comprising a processor and a memory”
“generating plasma, by at least one reactor powered by an energy supply system, from a plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in sample”
“wherein the energy supply system comprises an electrical system, wherein the electrical system adjusts the voltage of the at least one reactor to sustain a stable plasma condition”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“receiving training data from one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices”
“receiving experimental data comprising the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures from a testing spectrometer”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way or are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way, mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“combining the training data received from the one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices with public datasets and/or additional third party datasets”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more devices include cloud servers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices comprises an optical emission spectroscopy (OES) spectrometer”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calibrating the measured spectral graphs against known reference lines”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“normalizing the measured spectral graphs by total emission intensity or an internal reference line”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“via an Al module”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“dynamically switching methods of determining composition and/or concentration of the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“automatically generating a report with indications and concentrations of present identified molecules based on comparison of the experimental data to the characteristic profiles”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“solving a linear programming model to determine the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of measured spectral graphs are generated from at least two different analysis modalities”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“develop characteristic profiles for a plurality of training samples”
“utilize the normalized spectral graphs to determine the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
“generates a report with indications of present identified molecules based on comparison of the experimental data to the characteristic profiles”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
The limitations:
“calculates a normalized spectral graph for each of the measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)), mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“wherein the training data comprises a plurality of measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples of known elements, known compounds, and/or known mixtures”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply an exception for the abstract ideas in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“An artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, comprising: one or more cloud servers configured to…”
“an Al module on the one or more cloud servers configured to…”
“wherein the Al module…”
“wherein the Al module is operable to…”
“wherein the Al module automatically…”
“wherein the electrical system adjusts the voltage of the at least one reactor to sustain a stable plasma condition, from a plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures testing spectrometer”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“receive training data from one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices”
“wherein the one or more cloud servers receive experimental data comprising generated plasma from at least one reactor powered by an energy supply system with an electrical system”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way or are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the receiving limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way, mere instructions to apply an exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates updated characteristic profiles based on a combination of stored training data and new training data when the new training data is received from the one or more spectrometers or chemical analysis devices”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module automatically…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generates an updated report with indications of identified molecules based on a comparison of the experimental data to updated characteristic profiles”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes,
i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module automatically…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automatically identifying molecules in a sample, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“solve a linear programming model to determine the plurality of unknown elements, unknown compounds and/or unknown mixtures in the experimental data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the Al module is operable to…”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts the human mind cannot generate plasma from unknown elements, compounds, and mixtures or adjust voltage to sustain a stable plasma condition (“Remarks”, Page 14).
However, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims above, the limitations correspond to mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. Further, the claims recite at least the abstract idea of calculating a normalized spectral graph for each of the measured spectral graphs corresponding with the training samples, which is a mathematical operation and therefore an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite at least an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts that even assuming the claims do recite an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application, and specifically, the Applicant asserts that the present invention is an improvement to the technical field of spectroscopic analysis, which achieves an improvement in accuracy, precision, and recall in determining composition of unknown analytes (“Remarks”, Page 17). Applicant further asserts that the inclusion of a plasma reactor and energy supply that adjusts voltage to sustain a stable plasma condition represents an improvement to the field of spectroscopic detection (“Remarks”, Page 19).
However, even assuming the claims do recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract idea of calculating a normalized spectral graph, which is used to determine the unknown elements/compounds/mixtures. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea does not result in patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, even assuming the claims do recite an improvement, it would be an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights